Well, I knew there were people, obviously on the side of the government and with the help of the media, posing as *the* critics of the official investigation and of the government response to the attacks, like Wesley Clark that made a very light critic saying "we never finished the investigation of 9/11" and so on. And I've just searched the Internet and discovered that Clark even joined a group called "Patriots Question 9/11". But no, I was not aware that there were so many of them and that they even joined or formed this kind of groups. But the thing is that Alex seemed to be falling on Nader's trap and supporting him, saying "I'm really supporting you now" and "we need some type of fusion party". And that's why I came here to warn everybody.

«Ralph Nader, a perennial "independent" presidential candidate, "much admired for his anti-establishment stance," is financed by the Rockefeller network in his attempt to destroy the free enterprise system. Principal Nader financiers are the Ford Foundation and the Field Foundation, both CFR-interlocked. According to a Business Week article reprinted in the Congressional Record of March 10, 1971, "John D. Rockefeller IV is an advisor to Nader."»

Wow thanks for that info Portuguese. It never even occurred to me. I wonder if he is still working for those elements or inadvertently it was just something he had to do career wise.

portuguese anarchist Says:September 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

To Danny and all:

I finally got a chance to hear the interview today.

His statements about government crack down on corporations appear to confirm the quote I made from Estulin.

I seriously doubt he has become some sort of dissident on "them" and been able to maintain a high-profile with the help of the controlled media and not been a victim of character assassination or reprisals.

Calling for a new 9/11 investigation doesn’t necessarily mean he wants a *real* investigation or that, with all the easily available evidence, he is admitting he knows it was an inside job and might mean he just wants another more elaborated whitewash to try to silence the critics of the previous one. Some of whom, notice, he says make "outlandish" questions. Is there ever going to be such a new investigation? Should you spend your time and concentrate your efforts on that? If there’s a new investigation, who’s going to make it? The Government? The same organization that was responsible for the attacks? Like Alex says about Congress, the people in key positions have all already been bought and paid for! All the way up to the Supreme Court that gave George W. Bush the election. Would the investigation instead be made by one of "their" groups, foundations or controlled NGOs? Who would convict the government? The same judicial system that killed Stanley Hilton’s lawsuit?

Two more things you should notice in the interview:

Number one: He wants a "leading" opponent of the 9/11 Commission Report to debate it on TV. He wants a single person in a single debate to appear as a representation of the 9/11 Truth (grassroots) Movement. Would he be the one choosing the person in question? What more easy way to divert, misrepresent and distort the 9/11 Truth Movement’s message than to put one of "them" on that side of the debate. A debate at the National (controlled) Press Club? Under which rules would that debate take place and about what specific topics would it be about?

Number two: He calls the Gulf of Tonkin and the 1898 incidents "provocations" not "false flag operations". While calling for your votes, he conveniently uses a not very clear rhetoric making it appear he’s on your side. He says "yes" after Alex asks him if "governments do stage events and blame it on their enemies", appearing to be on his side, and then slightly clarifies his position by calling them "provocations". Almost surely, if someone asks him to be more clear about this, he will say he means the government provoked (teased) their enemies to the point that they ended up attacking his ships, so that the government would have a pretext to counter-attack and not what Alex is talking about.

You have to be very aware of people who present themselves as your supporters and then try to either become leading critical "gatekeepers" that only point out to petty wrongdoings by the government and hide the (much more important and revealing) rest and people that lead you into traps, false solutions, or try to make you adopt counter-productive or time-wasting ineffective forms of struggle.

Always think and decide for yourselves.

Like someone who was part of a fake 9/11 investigation team said to me some years ago:

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."— Vladimir I. Lenin

*****

"any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn’t matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious – so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State."This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken by members – they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is essential. So long as rights of the individual are not introduced into the discussion the clash of ideas generates the conflict necessary for change."As the objective is also global control an emphasis is placed on global thinking, i.e., internationalism. This is done through world organizations and world law."— Antony C. Sutton, "America’s Secret Establishment"

"As a rhetorical technique, good cop, bad cop may refer to the joint effort to gain compliance from a community over an issue that is unpopular. The bad cop, who may be a politician, first may make statements regarding an issue that are considered extremely unpopular. The good cop then poses a moderate, compromising solution that seems preferable."— http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-good-cop-bad-cop.htm

portuguese anarchist Says:September 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am

For those of you who might still come here, just to add something I didn’t say in the previous post, when I talk about a possible debate organized or promoted by Nader, I’m assuming that there’s ever going to be such a debate. But given the usual difference between what politicians say they’re going to do and what they actually do, I strongly suspect he’s just saying that in order to get the people who question 9/11 to vote for him.

wvoutlaw2002

«Ralph Nader, a perennial "independent" presidential candidate, "much admired for his anti-establishment stance," is financed by the Rockefeller network in his attempt to destroy the free enterprise system. Principal Nader financiers are the Ford Foundation and the Field Foundation, both CFR-interlocked. According to a Business Week article reprinted in the Congressional Record of March 10, 1971, "John D. Rockefeller IV is an advisor to Nader."»

A list of Nader-affiliated organizations started up by Rockefeller donations (* indicated that the organization is still Rockefeller-funded):

Public Citizen* 1Center for the Study of Reponsive Law* (CSRL)Center for Science in the Public Interest* (started by three CSRL employees) 3Pension Rights Center* 4U.S. Public Interest Research Group* 5Multinational Monitor* 6Clean Water Action Project* 7

CPTech's main support is from grants received from the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and the Open Society Institute. We also receive some contributions from individuals.

We can always use contributions. Tax deductible contributions (under 501(c)(3) of the IRS code) can be sent to CPTech at the address given above, made out to Essential Information, with a note that the money is to be spent on CPTech. CPTech is a project of the Center for the Study of Responsive Law and Essential Information.

Who are these guys? Multinational Monitor is a magazine project of Essential Information, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1983 and now run by Beltway denizen Russell Mokhiber (editor of Corporate Crime Reporter) with a $1,266,966 budget (1999) funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Turner Foundation, Packard Foundation and two dozen other usual suspects.

You'll love this: Multinational Monitor's parent corporation, Essential Information, Inc. accepts funding from 2001's Ten Worst Corporations.How does Essential Information, Inc. get this tainted money? Through its donors, of course. The common stock of 2001's Ten Worst Corporations is held in the investment portfolio of one or another of its donor foundations - the Rockefeller Foundation alone owns stock in 5 of the Ten Worst - so dividends and sale of stock from the Ten Worst becomes part of the donors' payout money that keeps Multinational Monitor alive. One of their Ten Worst Corporations of 2001 is Sara Lee. Ironically, Multinational Monitor's parent corporation got a $35,000 grant directly from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and Nathan Cummings was the founder of - you guessed it - Sara Lee.

Now for the moral dilemma: Will Multinational Monitor give back this tainted money? As a stakeholder of Multinational Monitor, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise reminds Essential Information, Inc. of the immortal words of Donald Ross when he was executive director of the Rockefeller Family Fund (another donor of theirs) who said, "The only thing wrong with tainted money is 'tain't enough of it."Live long and prosper, Multinational Monitor. So you can keep making our points for us. With money from those you'd like to destroy.

IAHF List: Politics is the manipulation of perceptions, and in the world of politics, things are seldom as they first appear to be on the surface. Please read the article below my comments by William Jasper about Ralph Nader.

His observation that Nader is taking money from the Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and other Globalist Foundations is shocking, revealing, and very consistent with my own experience of trying to get assistance from this man for our health freedom battle, only to be rebuffed. At the time, this made no sense to me, but this article helps me understand what I ran into.

Several years ago, I became interested in the "Global Trade Watch" division of Ralph Nader's well known organization called "Public Citizen" (See http://www.citizen.org/trade/

On the SURFACE, Nader, and his minion Lori Wallach, JD, APPEAR to be on the side of the PEOPLE in this battle against globalization. The SAD REALITY however is that all that is is an ILLUSION.

I made a trip to Washington DC a few years ago when I was trying to get congressional oversight on the Codex vitamin issue, and I had a meeting at the office of Public Citizen with their Global Trade Watch Division.

I told them that if they helped me with this Codex vitamin issue, they could get the attention of American vitamin consumers from all sides of the political spectrum to fight against the WTO and against the planned destruction of American vitamin laws.

They would not help. The REASON they gave was that they could not take a position that contradicted a position of Sidney Wolfe, MD who handles medical matters for Nader and who has for decades. Wolfe is a diehard opponent of the dietary supplement industry and he totally opposes the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

At the time I just thought that Wolfe was my main problem inside Public Citizen, but the article below shows us all a much BIGGER picture..... Public Citizen is a PHONY ORGANIZATION. It is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. It is FUNDED by the Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and other globalist Foundations it PRETENDS to be AGAINST!!

I demonstrated against the WTO in Seattle in '99, but I see now that I GENUINELY oppose the WTO, while Nader, who had such a high profile in the same demonstration in Seattle in '99 is only going through the MOTIONS. All of us, world wide, need to work together to expose FRAUDS such as this. Interestingly enough, Jim Turner, Chairman of the Board of "Citizens for Health" in the USA used to WORK for Nader.

Perhaps this helps explain why so called "Citizens for Health" has NOTHING on its website about either the Codex issue or about the EU Food Supplement Directive despite massive urging from me that they address these issues and urge public support for ANH's lawsuit to overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive.... Birds of a feather fly together.....

Please make a donation today to the Alliance for Natural Health at http://www.alliance-natural-health.org You'll be glad to know that today all 6 Fresh and Wild Stores in London will be donating 5% of their profits to the ANH lawsuit and Rob Verkerk of ANH will be in the stores to educate consumers. Fresh and Wild is a division of Whole Foods Market in the USA. Lets hope we can prevail upon Whole Foods to do the same thing in the USA that they're doing in England to help ANH!!!

Please read Jasper's article below which exposes Nader for the Fraud that he is. If you have been a Nader supporter for a long time, please don't have a kneejerk reaction to this information. I WANTED to believe in Nader myself, because I USED to think he was a good man who could be TRUSTED, but I found out otherwise when I approached his organization seeking assistance and ran into a brick wall. This explains why I did:

This is the second installment in a series of articles looking at the forces behind the scenes propelling us toward globalization through NAFTA, the FTAA and the WTO.

[]Ralph Nader ­ "Citizen Ralph" is the quintessential Establishment revolutionary ­ fed, funded, pampered and promoted by the globalist elites and one-world corporatists he claims to be fighting. With generous funding from Insider foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Field, Rubin, Stern, et al.), over the past several decades Nader has launched a plethora of radical "public interest" groups that have become a permanent, full-time lobbying force for ever bigger government. They include: Public Citizen, Congress Watch, Citizen Works, Public Interest Research Group, Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Center for Auto Safety, Government Purchasing Project and the Congressional Accountability Project.

Nader’s two main organizations involved in trade issues are Public Citizen and Global Trade Watch (GTW). The GTW website tells us:

Thanks to initial support from the Ford Foundation, last year we launched a major project on international harmonization of standards that unites GTW and Public Citizen’s medical, legal, energy/environmental, and product/auto safety divisions. NAFTA and the WTO include requirements to either globally standardize regulatory policies or declare other nations’ standards as "equivalent." We now work with numerous local, state, and federal policy-makers, and also with NGOs, to make them aware of these issues and facilitate their input and participation. [Emphasis added.]

Harmonization. That’s one of the euphemisms adopted from the socialist/internationalist lexicon of the European Union. The globalist architects of the EU insisted for years that harmonization of national laws and social policies would not compromise national sovereignty or local control. But that is precisely what it has done. How could it have been otherwise, when local and national governments are required to bring their laws into conformity with the emerging supranational government?

Robert Wright, a senior editor for The New Republic, acknowledged Nader’s deceptive role in the anti-globalization charade in the magazine’s January 17, 2000 issue. Mr. Wright, an ardent one-worlder, was jubilant concerning the global structures developing under NAFTA and the WTO. In a cover story ­ entitled "America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray" ­ Wright noted that "Nader and most of the Seattle left would gladly accept a sovereignty-crushing world body if it followed the leftish model of supranational governance found in the European Union." "Indeed," he said, "it was partly to please the Seattle activists that President Clinton espoused a future WTO whose member nations would meet global environmental and labor standards or else face sanction."

Nader, who ran for the White House in 1996 and 2000 on the Green Party ticket, has adopted the same deceptive tactics and rhetoric that the European Green Parties and the Socialist Group in the EU Parliament have used to drive their countries further into the EU trap. Nader remains the committed socialist that he was in the 1960s.

During an interview in Australia in 1972, he explained his solution for America’s problems: "What is needed is socialism or communism of one sort or another."

For the past four decades (and continuing to the present), Nader has worked closely with top apparatchiks from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the Marxist cabal with long-standing ties to the Soviet KGB and Castro’s DGI. In 2003 he endorsed the California gubernatorial campaign of Peter Camejo, a longtime Trotskyite communist activist in the Socialist Workers Party.[]

Yes, these elections are rigged as we all know it, but the Illuminati put Nadar in there to MAKE SURE their guy Bush II gets into the Oval Office. If Nadar wasn't in there, then all that "rigging" in FL would have made it look TOO obvious. Otherwise, with Nadar in there, all the talk among the masses was over how Nadar took Gore FL votes instead of what really went on down there.

No, not saying that I would have preferred "Climate Change" Gore, but just saying that the establishment really had to make sure they got there guy in.

Yes, these elections are rigged as we all know it, but the Illuminati put Nadar in there to MAKE SURE their guy Bush II gets into the Oval Office. If Nadar wasn't in there, then all that "rigging" in FL would have made it look TOO obvious. Otherwise, with Nadar in there, all the talk among the masses was over how Nadar took Gore FL votes instead of what really went on down there.

Scapegoat Nader all you want, the fact remains that "lesser evil voting" is what is destroying this nation!

I've been a long time supporter and voter for Nader. I never bought the spoiler image they tried to paint him with, but pointing out his Foundation funding is putting the pieces together for why his "grassroots" activism wasn't actually accessible from the grassroots. His work was designed to stay marginalized. Maybe the funders he was beholden to kept him on a short leash. His campaign never spilled over into the kind of genuine relevance that Ron Paul's has, whom I wholeheartedly support. I still respect Nader as an honest man.

Logged

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society, but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. - Thomas Jefferson.

That's the point I was trying to drive home with - having their particular puppet Bush II in there during the time period of 9/11 and these 2 wars in the ME would be PERFECT timing for them and casting for him, why? Because they easily painted this guy as a "born again christian" President who would supposedly be the leader warring against Islam, which supposedly attacked us, and supposedly too with this "christian" President fighting a "holy war", "bible prophecy" would be unfolding in the ME. I mean look at how he suckered in the church(I should say today's pseudo-501c3 church).

I highly doubt the Illuminati would want Gore in here b/c obviously, casting him during this time period would be alot like casting Jerry Lewis in a William Shakespeare movie. If anything, the 2000 election really almost incited riots here in this country.